It’s a funny thing law makers have to deal with: the people! Anything approved by the voters can only be changed by the voters. We out-rank the City Council, the Rent Board, even the state legislature. However, this also ties the hands of elected officials.

That is why Measure AA on the November 8th ballot in Berkeley is a much-needed fix. In November 2000, voters approved relocation funds and eviction protections for elderly and disabled tenants when Berkeley experienced the first big wave of owner-move-in evictions (OMI). But now the only way to update the 16-year-old relocation amounts is to go to the ballot box with Measure AA.

The Good News?

The City Council just raised the relocation funds for tenants thrown out for the other common no-fault eviction, the Ellis Act. Eviction restrictions and relocation funds for the Ellis Act were not decided by the voters, so City Council was permitted to update Ellis relocation assistance following a request by the Rent Board.

Rent Board Ellis Report
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Level_3_-_General/INFO_Ellis%20Report%20to%20Committee_5-4-16.pdf

City Council Item
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2016/10_Oct/Documents/2016-10-18_Item_03_Ordinance_7507.aspx

Berkeley Measure AA
“Measure AA is endorsed by many different groups, because it supports education, preserves diversity, and by slowing displacement it also helps the environment.”
http://www.berkeleymeasureaa.org/

In Other News

Election Complaint Against Measure DD
A UC student association filed a complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding campaign law violations by the landlord group “Committee for Real Affordable Housing Yes on Measure DD, No on Measure U1, Sponsored By Berkeley Property Owners Association.”
According to the press release, the list of violations “…includes multiple advertisements and literature that does not include the mandatory disclosure requirements. In one case, a mailed document was sent without proper disclosure, and was deceptively designed to look like an official government document.”
pressreleasereaffordablehousingproponentsslambiglandlordsoncampaignviolations

 

Is this a campaign violation?
Is this a campaign violation?

 More on Suspected Campaign Violations
“Stefan Elgstrand, secretary of the Berkeley Tenants Union, said the Berkeley Tenants Union supported the FPPC filing. ‘We want to make sure that these groups that do these deceptive mailings are held accountable,’ Elgstrand said.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/10/23/campus-group-files-complaint-measure-dd-campaign-alleged-violations/

More on Measure U1 and Measure DD
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2016-10-14/article/45005?headline=Measures-U1-and-DD-br-What-s-the-difference—Rob-Wrenn

 

This is a big election for renters since the housing crisis has morphed into a housing emergency that has seen a record number of Cal students homeless while in school, the rapid displacement of longtime South Berkeley families, and a dramatic increase in both legal but pretextual evictions and general tenant harassment.

BTU shared our ballot measure endorsements meeting with our allies at Berkeley Citizens Action — the full endorsement list for Measures is at the bottom of this post.

screen-shot-2016-10-11-at-4-10-23-pm

Berkeley: More Eviction Protections
So far, Berkeley’s Measure AA has no declared opposition, and is endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Party, Green Party of Alameda County, Berkeley School Board, East Bay Young Dems, Berkeley Tenants Union and Wellstone Democratic Club.
The measure, put on the ballot by the City Council at the request of the Berkeley Rent Board, delays “no fault” owner-move-in evictions (OMIs) of families with school-age children until end of school year and increases relocation funds. Voters have required landlords in OMIs to provide relocation help of $4,500 to low-income tenants, but not other tenants, since 2000. Measure AA would update this amount to $15,000, and require that it be paid to all tenant households, plus an additional $5,000 for low-income, disabled, age 60 or older, or long-term (since 1998) tenants.
Relocation funds help evicted renters stay in the area, which is good for the community and the environment.

Berkeley v. Big Landlords
Of course, the big news this year is the controversy generated by competing ballot measures based on the failed 2014 volunteer signature drive called Robin Hood. The Daily Planet reported that the Berkeley Property Owners Association has spent over $500,000 – that’s half a million dollars – to stop Measure U1. The Planet says that is the second most money spent in Berkeley history!
The grassroots campaign needs each and every renter in Berkeley to get up to speed and talk to their friends and neighbors – U1 can’t afford to compete with glossy mailers or pay students $15 an hour to hang something on your door! Renters should study up on the differences between U1 and DD and help Berkeley get the most affordable housing!

Who Supports Yes on U1 and No on DD?

The League of Women Voters: Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville
Alameda County Democratic Party, Wellstone, John George
East Bay Housing Organizations, Berkeley Food and Housing Project, BOSS
California Alliance for Retired Americans, ASUC, Berkeley Student Coop, Cal Dems
Sierra Club, Green Party, Greenbelt Alliance
Robert Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy
Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Progressive Alliance, Berkeley Citizens Action

 

btu-no-on-u1-e1476232453372

 

Student Leaders Op-Ed – No on Deceptive DD.
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/09/13/conflicting-city-council-measures-seek-confuse-voters/

Alameda County Housing Bond Measure A1
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to place a $580 million housing bond on the November ballot. This measure is a much needed investment in affordable homes for low-income renters, homeownership, and an Innovation Fund to seek new solutions to our housing crisis. It will require that 20% of the rental housing units be reserved for extremely low-income households at or below 20% Area Median Income, provide homeownership opportunities, and provide support to help keep residents in their homes.”
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/07/28/op-ed-confronting-the-causes-and-solutions-of-mass-homelessness/comment-page-1/

More on Measure A1 from East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
http://ebho.org/our-work/alameda-county-housing-bond

More Info

Berkeley AA http://www.BerkeleyMeasureAA.org
Berkeley U1 http://www.fundaffordablehousing.org/
Berkeley DD http://tinyurl.com/dangerousdeception
Alameda A1 http://tinyurl.com/zego9dt

Nice Collection of Many Progressive Endorsements
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2016-10-07/article/44966?headline=Measures-and-Propositions-Progressive-endorsers–Margot-Smith

Rent Board Endorsements of Ballot Measures
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/09/20/berkeley-rent-stabilization-board-endorses-november-ballot-measures/

BTU / BCA 2016 Endorsements As Voted By Memberships

screen-shot-2016-10-11-at-4-10-58-pm 

 

More Evictions in West Berkeley
More Evictions in West Berkeley

On Tuesday, the Berkeley City Council will consider a request from the Rent Board to place a measure on the November 2016 ballot to update the Rent Ordinance. Because that law was passed by the voters, it can only be changed at the ballot box. This will be Item 48 on the June 14th agenda.

Update: This Will Be On The November Ballot

Summary of the Changes
The main request is to revise the amount of assistance tenants receive when they lose their homes to an owner move-in eviction (OMI). Berkeley’s relocation funds have not been updated since 2000. The changes would also expand relocation assistance to all tenants; currently only low-income Berkeley tenants get any recompense at all after such no fault evictions. Berkeley is the only rent controlled jurisdiction in California which restricts help by income. Since rents have gone up over 40% in five years, all tenants need help with moving costs and new security deposits.

The other important change to the Rent Ordinance would be to protect families with children from owner move-in evictions during the school year. An owner could still evict a family, but the family would not have to disrupt their children’s education and could wait until the summer to relocate. San Francisco has had such protections for renter families for many years.

OMI evictions in Berkeley doubled between 2013 and 2014.
When Berkeley voters passed “Measure Y” in November 2000, they also voted to have the Rent Board monitor such evictions. Recently, the Rent Board won an important court victory (see https://www.berkeleytenants.org/?p=1386) which upheld the agency’s ability to reset the rent to the previous tenant’s rent-controlled rent when a landlord evicts a tenant but does not actually move in.

The Rent Board reports on owner move-in evictions every six months. The reports show that most owners who evict buy the building and then evict within two years. The reports also show that most “fake” OMIs happen in larger buildings, and that recent OMIs are concentrated west of Sacramento Street. Yet the Rent Board only tracks evictions which follow the law. If tenants leave simply because they are threatened with an OMI, the Rent Board cannot track the eviction or enforce the law. Tenants who accept a buyout also have new protections passed by the City Council a few months ago, but typically waive their rights under the Rent Ordinance for some cash.
Relocation funds would increase to about $15,000 per household.
BTU hopes increasing the relocation payment a landlord is required to give might cut down on false evictions.

Read Item 48 here: RSO Changes Ballot Measure Final
“The law currently requires landlords who evict for the purpose of moving into the rental unit to pay $4,500 only to tenant households who qualify as low income. Tenants who are evicted for owner move in but do not qualify as low income receive nothing. Berkeley is one of the only major rent control jurisdictions in the state that does not provide relocation assistance to all tenants, regardless of income. Also, the relocation assistance amount set forth in Measure Y has not been adjusted since it was passed almost 16 years ago. The amount of the assistance is nearly four times lower than that required by the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood – each of which have periodically adjusted relocation payments over the years in response to rising rents, moving costs, and inflation.”

Report on Owner Move In Evictions:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Level_3_-_General/Measure%20Y%20report_9-18-15(1).pdf

IMG_1151The Berkeley Rent Board won an important case regarding eviction threats and OMI evictions where the owner never moved in. The California Court of Appeal supported the Berkeley regulation that resets rent for new tenants at the lower controlled rent if the previous tenant moved within a year of getting an Owner Move-In notice.

In this case, a tenant who rented at 1807 Addison for 28 years and had refused informal requests to move finally got a formal eviction notice, so she made a deal, got some money, and moved. Then the owner rescinded the OMI notice. The tenants who moved in challenged their rent – which was more than double the old rent – under regulation 1016.

The regulation addresses withdrawn eviction notices for owner occupancy and states, “…if the tenant vacates within one year of the date of service of the notice, the tenancy is presumed to have been terminated by the owner as a result of the notice. The rental rate for the next tenancy established in the vacated unit shall be no more than the maximum allowed under the Rent Ordinance for the tenant who vacated.”

The Rent Board called the court decision a “victory for local control at a time when gentrification purges valued members of our community.” The Court referred to the landlord Jason Mak’s gambit as “subterfuge.”

Rent Board Press Release:
“The court ruled that when a landlord uses an eviction notice as “negotiating leverage” to secure an agreement that the tenant would “voluntarily vacate” the unit, the tenant did not actually vacate voluntarily.”
Mak press release (9-8-15)

Court Decision:
“The finding that the tenancy was terminated pursuant to the termination notice can hardly be questioned, notwithstanding the attempt to mischaracterize the situation in the agreement that Burns agreed to sign. Maintaining the rent level of the former tenant is a rational and proportional deterrent to the use of such an artifice in the future.
Mak Omi decision reg 1016

In the Papers:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28777456/berkeley-court-finds-property-owner-made-false-made

Tenants In the News

Several of these stories were sent in by BTU members:

BERKELEY

Berkeley Owners Claim Elected Officials Don’t Represent Their Interests
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/07/06/property-owners-should-be-involved-in-shaping-berkeley-housing-policy/

Development: BARF Invited, Berkeley Tenants Not
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28596764/berkeley-residents-wary-6-story-adeline-street-mixed

SAN FRANCISCO

Removal of Units From Housing Market
The Housing Balance Report shows the city added 6,559 affordable housing units between 2004 and 2014. But during the same period, 5,470 apartments were “removed from protected status” through a variety of “no fault” evictions allowed by state law.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-rent-controlled-apartments-lost-as-fast-as-6380744.php

Vacation Rentals Struggle Continues in SF
Tired of relying on their Supervisors – who crafted a law that city staff explained was unenforceable, then weakened that law a few months later – tenants and hotel workers in SF have joined forces to write a ballot measure.
http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Initiative_to_Restrict_Short-Term_Rentals_%28November_2015%29

Chronicle does Five-part Series on Impact of Short Term Rentals
http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/#1

CALIFORNIA

El Cerrito: Low Income Renters Displaced at RV Park
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/low-income-tenants-to-be-directly-displaced-by-development-in-el-cerrito/Content?oid=4402578

Healdsburg Continues Ban on Airbnb
And why isn’t this a no-brainer for Berkeley’s Planning Commission too?
The City Council took little time Monday evening in unanimously upholding a ban on vacation rentals in residential areas, mainly in an effort to preserve the city’s housing for residents and workers — not visitors. “Anything that takes away from potential long-term rental stock is a non-starter,” said Mayor Shaun McCaffery, noting that the lack of affordable housing has risen to the top of the civic agenda with a recent wave of escalating rents and evictions of low-income tenants.”
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4353074-181/healdsburg-reaffirms-ban-on-vacation

Sacramento Looking into Vacation Rentals
Sacramento is considering allowing landlords to rent out homes or rooms up to 30 days a year.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/08/13/how-sacramento-s-airbnb-proposal-stacks-up.html